Grievance No

Judges "Grievances filed by Judges." Judicial Accountability. Summary Justice. Orders on a petition. Grievance. Law “its application.”

- The actions of the grievant judge were carried out within the confines of his jurisdiction as delineated by the legislator, with jurisdiction available for the Sharia Magistrate of Summary Justice and the presence of an imminent danger of dispossession of movables, which are among factual matters to be assessed by the competent judge without further review from the higher court. Also, the decision was made in accordance with the requisite procedures for notification and delivery during the execution and notification of the order on a petition. Furthermore, the acknowledgment by the judgment debtor of the right, his seizure of the wife’s gold jewelry, subsequent reconciliation with the petitioner, and the return of the gold jewelry, culminating in the resolution of the dispute through a compromise khul' contract, and the complainant's withdrawal of the grievance against the order on a petition during the judicial inspection, are all indicative of the validity of the case and the soundness of the grievant judge’s decision. Consequently, the judicial accountability directed against the aggrieved judge lacks a basis in both reality and the law and thus warrants removal.

The Civil Procedure Law and its Regulation affirm the right of the opposing party to petition the court for a provisional order, seeking the imposition of a provisional seizure of funds or a travel ban. This request is made through the submission of a petition, and the order is issued without notification to the other party due to its nature of caution and urgency. The person against whom the order rejecting the petition for provisional seizure was issued, or by the person against whom it was issued, retains the right to file a grievance against the order and has the option to challenge it through appeal and cassation. Execution of the order is permissible if the ruling includes and stipulates for expedited enforcement. There are two categories of expedited enforcement: expedited enforcement by force of law, occurring in summary judgments and orders issued on petitions, and permissible expedited enforcement, applicable in various cases. These cases include situations where the defendant acknowledges the creation of the obligation or acknowledges the debt, and any instance in which the delay in implementation results in harm to the person in favour of whom the ruling is made or the petitioner. The determination of such matters is left to the discretion of the competent court. The description of expedited enforcement may be suspended by the Court of Grievance or Appeal through a grievance submitted to it, provided that the notice includes essential data, the execution order, and the prior notification of the writ of execution in accordance with the established notification procedures. This notice shall encompass a statement of the required actions and a payment order to the debtor. Execution procedures are contingent upon the issuance of a writ of execution, which is typically associated with judgments, judicial orders, orders on petitions of various types, and documents notarised before the court or a notary public in line with the provisions outlined in Article 12 of Notary Public Law No. 4 of 2013 and other documents granted this status, after appending the writs of execution with the executive formula. However, in summary matters, cases of necessity, or situations where delay could result in harm, the court, upon the request of the concerned party, has the authority to order the enforcement of the ruling without notification and without affixing an executive formula. In such instances, the clerk provides the draft of the ruling or order to the enforcement officer, who returns it upon completion of execution. Summary Justice also holds the authority to issue a ruling imposing judicial receivership or seizure on movable property, real estate, or a sum of money whenever a dispute arises or the right to it is not established. This is applicable if the person with an interest in the money has reasonable grounds to fear an urgent danger that the money will remain in the hands of the possessor. The legislator, as indicated in Article 28 of the same law, specifies the two conditions for the jurisdiction of Summary Justice in general, which include urgency and the absence of prejudice to the origin of the right. In light of the above, Summary Justice is endowed with jurisdiction over lawsuits pertaining to judicial receivership and the issuance of orders on petitions. The law has established certain conditions for this jurisdiction, namely that the subject matter for which receivership is sought must be a movable property, real estate, or a sum of money, and a dispute must have arisen with its possessor. To streamline and expedite procedures, the legislator has instituted an exceptional measure to safeguard the right and avert imminent danger to the property. This involves issuing the order without adherence to the principle of confrontation between opposing parties and in the absence of the opponent, with the aim of expediting proceedings and introducing an element of surprise in the pursuit of complete justice. In both scenarios, the person seeking to impose receivership or seize funds must possess reasonable grounds to fear an immediate danger that the money will remain in the hands of its possessor. This condition reiterates the general requirement for the jurisdiction of Summary Justice, emphasizing the imperative of urgency. Specifically, it signifies the rational apprehension of potential harm to the substantive right if the plaintiff (the interested party) does not secure the necessary temporary protection. This protection becomes crucial, especially when the substantive dispute, whether existing or imminent, cannot be resolved through judgment or consent until the lawsuit is initiated. Furthermore, it is prescribed that the assessment of the immediate danger or just cause for imposing the order or judicial receivership is an independent prerogative of the trial court, provided it is valid and acceptable.

Given the circumstances outlined, it is evident that the order issued by the grievant judge adhered to the confines of his jurisdiction as delineated by the legislator, with jurisdiction available for the Sharia Magistrate of Summary Justice, and considering the legitimate fear of imminent danger with regards to the judgment debtor potentially disposing of the movables, which is a factual matter to be assessed by the competent judge without further review from the higher court, as long as the decision is valid and acceptable, with the requisite procedures for notification and delivery during the execution and notification of the order on a petition. Furthermore, the acknowledgment by the judgment debtor of the right, his seizure of the wife’s gold jewelry, subsequent reconciliation with the petitioner, and the return of the gold jewelry, culminating in the resolution of the dispute through a compromise khul' contract, and the complainant's withdrawal of the grievance against the order on a petition during the judicial inspection, serve as compelling evidence affirming the validity of the lawsuit and the soundness of the grievant judge’s decision. Therefore, the judicial accountability directed against the grievant judge is not grounded in reality or the law and warrants removal. The determination by the Judicial Inspection Committee characterising the mentioned action as constituting judicial accountability seems unnecessary, given that the decision of the aggrieved judge was rendered within the confines of the assigned jurisdiction and in a summary fashion, subsequent to the acknowledgment of the debt and possession of the wife’s assets by the judgment debtor. The judge's actions align with the requisites to conclude the dispute, stabilise legal positions between the parties, and safeguard the rights of the opposing parties. Such actions are imperative for ensuring complete justice and access to rights. Consequently, this does not serve as a basis to hold the judge accountable in a manner, which necessitates the removal of accountability, as it lacks a foundation in both reality and the law.

Whereas, Mr. Judge [Name] lodged a grievance against the judicial accountability directed against him, which was described in the decision issued by the committee formed by the Judicial Inspection Department on 22/12/2020 in the Case No. 456-2020 - order on a petition, the Sharia Court in the Emirate of Sharjah. The grievance contends that the decisions made by the judge in the order on a petition against the complainant were in accordance with the legislator's framework, emphasising the urgency associated with such orders.

Mr. Judge raised an opposition against the judicial accountability, seeking its cancellation. The committee formed by the Judicial Inspection Department, after reviewing the grievance, accepted it in form but rejected it on the merits. Subsequently, the Inspection Department referred the grievance to this court.

Upon the appointment of the preparatory judge and the submission of his report, a session was convened to consider the grievance before the court. The complainant steadfastly adhered to the contentions in his memorandum, urging the removal of accountability. Consequently, the court opted to suspend the grievance for adjudication during today's session.

The grievant party contends, in the first and second reasons, that there was an error on the part of the judicial inspector and the judicial inspection committee in holding the Judge accountable regarding the order on the petition he issued. The argument revolves around the assertion that Mr. Judge made the decision with proper justification, necessity, urgency, and a legitimate fear of the imminent danger that the judgment debtor might dispose of the movables and gold, all within the bounds of the legal framework.

This objection is deemed to hold merits, since the Civil Procedure Law and its Regulation affirm the right of the opposing party to petition the court for a provisional order, seeking the imposition of a provisional seizure of funds or a travel ban. This request is made through the submission of a petition, and the order is issued without notification to the other party due to its nature of caution and urgency.

The person against whom the order rejecting the petition for provisional seizure was issued, or by the person against whom it was issued, retains the right to file a grievance against the order and has the option to challenge it through appeal and cassation.

Execution of the order is permissible if the ruling includes and stipulates for expedited enforcement.

There are two categories of expedited enforcement: expedited enforcement by force of law, occurring in summary judgments and orders issued on petitions, and permissible expedited enforcement, applicable in various cases. These cases include situations where the defendant acknowledges the creation of the obligation or acknowledges the debt, and any instance in which the delay in implementation results in harm to the person in favour of whom the ruling is made or the petitioner. The determination of such matters is left to the discretion of the competent court.

The description of expedited enforcement may be suspended by the Court of Grievance or Appeal through a grievance submitted to it, provided that the notice includes essential data, the execution order, and the prior notification of the writ of execution in accordance with the established notification procedures. This notice shall encompass a statement of the required actions and a payment order to the debtor.

Execution procedures are contingent upon the issuance of a writ of execution, which is typically associated with judgments, judicial orders, orders on petitions of various types, and documents notarised before the court or a notary public in line with the provisions outlined in Article 12 of Notary Public Law No. 4 of 2013 and other documents granted this status, after appending the writs of execution with the executive formula.

However, in summary matters, cases of necessity, or situations where delay could result in harm, the court, upon the request of the concerned party, has the authority to order the enforcement of the ruling without notification and without affixing an executive formula. In such instances, the clerk provides the draft of the ruling or order to the enforcement officer, who returns it upon completion of execution.

Summary Justice also holds the authority to issue a ruling imposing judicial receivership or seizure on movable property, real estate, or a sum of money whenever a dispute arises or the right to it is not established. This is applicable if the person with an interest in the money has reasonable grounds to fear an urgent danger that the money will remain in the hands of the possessor.

The legislator, as indicated in Article 28 of the same law, specifies the two conditions for the jurisdiction of Summary Justice in general, which include urgency and the absence of prejudice to the origin of the right.

In light of the above, Summary Justice is endowed with jurisdiction over lawsuits pertaining to judicial receivership and the issuance of orders on petitions. The law has established certain conditions for this jurisdiction, namely that the subject matter for which receivership is sought must be a movable property, real estate, or a sum of money, and a dispute must have arisen with its possessor. To streamline and expedite procedures, the legislator has instituted an exceptional measure to safeguard the right and avert imminent danger to the property. This involves issuing the order without adherence to the principle of confrontation between opposing parties and in the absence of the opponent, with the aim of expediting proceedings and introducing an element of surprise in the pursuit of complete justice.

In both scenarios, the person seeking to impose receivership or seize funds must possess reasonable grounds to fear an immediate danger that the money will remain in the hands of its possessor. This condition reiterates the general requirement for the jurisdiction of Summary Justice, emphasizing the imperative of urgency. Specifically, it signifies the rational apprehension of potential harm to the substantive right if the plaintiff (the interested party) does not secure the necessary temporary protection. This protection becomes crucial, especially when the substantive dispute, whether existing or imminent, cannot be resolved through judgment or consent until the lawsuit is initiated.

Furthermore, it is prescribed that the assessment of the immediate danger or just cause for imposing the order or judicial receivership is an independent prerogative of the trial court, provided it is valid and acceptable.

Furthermore, the acknowledgment by the judgment debtor of the right, his seizure of the wife’s gold jewelry, subsequent reconciliation with the petitioner, and the return of the gold jewelry, culminating in the resolution of the dispute through a compromise khul' contract, and the complainant's withdrawal of the grievance against the order on a petition during the judicial inspection, serve as compelling evidence affirming the validity of the lawsuit and the soundness of the grievant judge’s decision. Therefore, the judicial accountability directed against the grievant judge is not grounded in reality or the law and warrants removal.

The determination by the Judicial Inspection Committee characterising the mentioned action as constituting judicial accountability seems unnecessary, given that the decision of the aggrieved judge was rendered within the confines of the assigned jurisdiction and in a summary fashion, subsequent to the acknowledgment of the debt and possession of the wife’s assets by the judgment debtor. The judge's actions align with the requisites to conclude the dispute, stabilise legal positions between the parties, and safeguard the rights of the opposing parties. Such actions are imperative for ensuring complete justice and access to rights. Consequently, this does not serve as a basis to hold the judge accountable in a manner, which necessitates the removal of accountability, as it lacks a foundation in both reality and the law.